MGM Resorts strikes agreement to build casino at National Harbor near nation’s capital (Baltimore: home, school)

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I haven't read the legislation but is MGM a lock or does the franchise at National Harbor have to go through the same RFP process as the other venues?

I imagine there will be a bid process, but it will be written to where only MGM can meet the requirements. Remember, Baker and the Peterson Companies are looking to build an $800 Million casino resort. Penn National doesn't have the resources to pull something like that off. So, that's why they are crying foul. They know they won't get the bid. They feel it is rigged to favor MGM.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

The time frames for hearings are set out in COMAR that authorizes Planning and Zoning function. You have to change state law for some of what you propose. The times for public notice vary from 21 to 45 days, then the record is kept open for a specified period afterward.

Then you have the various Environmental Impact Statements, some of those can take years to develop.

Over all that is the right (notice the word) for persons of record or impact to file lawsuits.

Plus, and this is what you also have to consider, what sometimes looks good in the proposal stage turns sour when the numbers start getting crunched. That's what killed Disney, they didn't see the return on investment at NH they saw elsewhere.

Developers also will many times promise the moon to get approval and then start changing the project so what was approved isn't what ends up getting built. You saw that with a lot of condo developments the last few years that were transformed into apartment rentals. The market changed during construction.

Should that take decades though? Do I really need to pass away before I see a simple project come to fruition? Is this indicative of how it works across the country? Or is this just the way Maryland does things?

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Should that take decades though? Do I really need to pass away before I see a simple project come to fruition? Is this indicative of how it works across the country? Or is this just the way Maryland does things?

It depends. The Chesapeake Bay has a lot to do with some of the rules. The EPA has now thrown in so development in the entire watershed (that's 7 states and DC) is going to become more difficult. New stormwater rules are really going to make any building from your new house to a road more difficult (read more expensive), there are water supply issues in the Metro region now that have to be addressed as well as the new rules for sewage treatment. Again add $$$$$$ signs to that.

What you don't like is public participation and people objecting to projects. I totally understand those people (remember I also hold elective office) because they're invested in where they live and bought with certain understandings. Then a developer comes in, has the zoning changed, and their lives get turned upside down.

Personal experience:

Mrs. NBP and I bought our now 100 year old house 25 years ago. The street was a dead end which ended at a 25 acre unbuildable wooded area/marsh. The cross street was also a dead end. Our street was that stereotype tree shaded street that you see pictures of.

The first things that went were the trees when people bought houses from the older residents' heirs. The new folks didn't like trees or leaves and had grown up in metro area subdivisions that didn't have them.

Then the cross street dead end ravine was filled and houses were built (that was part of looping the new water system so that was how the associated watercourse was able to be re-routed). Then the 25 acre parcel was annexed which meant the Critical Area designation for it changed and a 135 unit upscale townhouse development was built (still building, 2/3 done now).

Upshot is that the street that had 2 or 3 cars an hour past our house now has 100 an hour in the morning and evening. The ambient temperature of the whole area is now about 10 degrees warmer due to the loss of tree cover on the street and the 25 acre parcel. People have constant complaints about wildlife like raccoons and possums going in their garbage and under their houses.

End result, our quality of life has taken a dive. Knowing then what we know now, we wouldn't have bought this house.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by molukai

I see. Well, looks like at least the momentum is gaining at least. Maybe it will be a trend; we'll have to see what lies down the road!

Hopefully

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I haven't read the legislation but is MGM a lock or does the franchise at National Harbor have to go through the same RFP process as the other venues?

They will have to go through a competitive process since it would not be outline in any legislation. They do have a partnership with Peterson which gives them first dibs on developing a casino resort at the NH. If the per slot requirement is still in place, the only way the winning bid would have to invest a minimum amount per slot machine. That said to get the 3000 slots (which I believe would be required), they would have to spend close to 800K

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

It depends. The Chesapeake Bay has a lot to do with some of the rules. The EPA has now thrown in so development in the entire watershed (that's 7 states and DC) is going to become more difficult. New stormwater rules are really going to make any building from your new house to a road more difficult (read more expensive), there are water supply issues in the Metro region now that have to be addressed as well as the new rules for sewage treatment. Again add $$$$$$ signs to that.

What you don't like is public participation and people objecting to projects. I totally understand those people (remember I also hold elective office) because they're invested in where they live and bought with certain understandings. Then a developer comes in, has the zoning changed, and their lives get turned upside down.

Personal experience:

Mrs. NBP and I bought our now 100 year old house 25 years ago. The street was a dead end which ended at a 25 acre unbuildable wooded area/marsh. The cross street was also a dead end. Our street was that stereotype tree shaded street that you see pictures of.

The first things that went were the trees when people bought houses from the older residents' heirs. The new folks didn't like trees or leaves and had grown up in metro area subdivisions that didn't have them.

Then the cross street dead end ravine was filled and houses were built (that was part of looping the new water system so that was how the associated watercourse was able to be re-routed). Then the 25 acre parcel was annexed which meant the Critical Area designation for it changed and a 135 unit upscale townhouse development was built (still building, 2/3 done now).

Upshot is that the street that had 2 or 3 cars an hour past our house now has 100 an hour in the morning and evening. The ambient temperature of the whole area is now about 10 degrees warmer due to the loss of tree cover on the street and the 25 acre parcel. People have constant complaints about wildlife like raccoons and possums going in their garbage and under their houses.

End result, our quality of life has taken a dive. Knowing then what we know now, we wouldn't have bought this house.

Point well taken and I understand completely. But how can you reconcile maintaining a standard of living expected 25 years ago with a growing population that needs somewhere to live? Let's face it. The D.C. job market is one of the hottest in the country and people are moving here in droves. The existing housing stock won't be enough to handle the influx of new residents. Especially in the cheaper neighborhoods east of the river. How do you maintain the 25 year-old quality of living with more people?

I can apply this to the Cafritz debate as well. UMD wants to grow into a top 10 university with a top 10 college town in College Park. How can you reconcile maintaining a 300+ acre wooded lot with a growing university less than a mile away and 10 minutes from the D.C. line? Yes, there are other empty lots to build on, but sooner or later, those will be filled as well, and so traffic will increase whether Cafritz is built or not. Do you move further out? Or relocate out of state to get what you had 25 years ago? It's a delicate balance. But sooner or later, something has to give. Counties are scrambling to get middle-class professionals to locate within there jurisdictions. How can they not accommodate them? Especially when there are current residents who want to maintain what they expected to have forever. Smart Growth can only do so much to mitigate the impacts growth has on established communities. Especially inside the beltway.

[molukai]

adelphi, I totally agree with everything you said in your last post. A first, I know, but here it is.

[UrbanScholar]

Hmm. Bmore delegates are proposing an amendment for the opening. However, it seems a little petty and short sighted. The current bill already states that the PG casino could not open before 7/2016 or 30 months after the Bmore casino whichever is later. I don't see the benefit of dropping the date and keeping the 30 month clause. Its splitting hairs. Without it they could reasonably open prior to 7/16 which sounds like it would defeat their goal of prolonging the competition opening. They are also proposing that a temporary table games site could not open in PG prior to the casino opening. Minor but I am not in agreement since MD Live was able to have a preview center prior to its opening and it would be a lost opportunity on income for the state. Just my thoughts

"A bill approved by the Senate says the casino could open July 1, 2016, or 30 months after a casino opens in Baltimore in 2014. Baltimore lawmakers want to specify opening at 30 months after the Baltimore casino opens...."

Delegates defining changes to Md. gaming expansion bill - herald-mail.com

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

Hmm. Bmore delegates are proposing an amendment for the opening. However, it seems a little petty and short sighted. The current bill already states that the PG casino could not open before 7/2016 or 30 months after the Bmore casino whichever is later. I don't see the benefit of dropping the date and keeping the 30 month clause. Its splitting hairs. Without it they could reasonably open prior to 7/16 which sounds like it would defeat their goal of prolonging the competition opening. They are also proposing that a temporary table games site could not open in PG prior to the casino opening. Minor but I am not in agreement since MD Live was able to have a preview center prior to its opening and it would be a lost opportunity on income for the state. Just my thoughts

"A bill approved by the Senate says the casino could open July 1, 2016, or 30 months after a casino opens in Baltimore in 2014. Baltimore lawmakers want to specify opening at 30 months after the Baltimore casino opens...."

Delegates defining changes to Md. gaming expansion bill - herald-mail.com

Yeah that doesn't make a lot of sense. I wonder why aren't other news sources talking about this?

[North Beach Person]

Adelphi, what was the base zoning for the Cafritz property? Was it zoned for what was approved or was it bought and then had the developer bait and switch pulled?

If the 2nd, then those residents nearby who were protesting had a *****. If not, then they didn't.

I've found this thread interesting and no one has yet answered the question of "Where do the displaced residents go?". We know that when DC started to gentrify they came to Prince George's.

//www.city-data.com/forum/washi...pg-county.html

What I find fascinating in the casino at National Harbor debate is all the chicken counting that's happening and the basket of eggs hasn't been delivered as yet.